Brown v. Yates


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CA-02032-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-16-2011
Opinion Author: Irving, P.J.
Holding: Reversed and remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Grandparents' visitation - Best interest of child - Decision of custodial parent - Constitutionality of sections 93-16-3(1) & 93-16-5
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ.
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-26-2009
Appealed from: Rankin County Chancery Court
Judge: Dan Fairly
Disposition: REQUEST FOR GRANDPARENT’S VISITATION DENIED
Case Number: 64679

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Annie Brown




RICHARD C. ROBERTS III DAVID BRIDGES



 

Appellee: Kim Yates J. EDWARD RAINER GARY LEE WILLIAMS  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Grandparents' visitation - Best interest of child - Decision of custodial parent - Constitutionality of sections 93-16-3(1) & 93-16-5

Summary of the Facts: Kim Yates and Thomas Yates were granted a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The chancery court granted full custody of the couple’s minor child to Kim. Thomas was granted supervised visitation, which was to take place at the home of his mother, Annie Brown, every other weekend. Annie was to be in the child’s presence at all times during visitation. Three years later, Thomas filed a motion for a modification of the visitation schedule, seeking unsupervised, standard visitation. Kim filed a motion to suspend visitation, alleging that Thomas had sexually abused the child. The chancery court entered a temporary order suspending Thomas’s visitation. Thomas later agreed to have his parental rights terminated. Following the termination of Thomas’s parental rights, Kim refused to allow the child to visit Annie. Annie filed a petition for grandparent visitation. Kim filed her answer and defenses and challenged the constitutionality of the grandparent-visitation statute. The chancery court held that the statute was constitutional, but denied visitation. Annie appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Annie argues that the chancery court erred when it denied her visitation, despite finding that visitation would be in R.A.’s best interest. Additionally, Annie argues that the chancery court erroneously required that she prove “compelling circumstances” before it would order visitation against Kim’s wishes. While the chancery court was required to give Kim’s decision regarding grandparent visitation special weight, it was not required to defer automatically to Kim’s decision as a fit custodial parent, especially where the chancellor found that visitation was in R.A.’s best interest. Accordingly, the chancery court’s denial of grandparent visitation is reversed and remanded for an award of reasonable visitation consistent with the chancery court’s Martin-factor analysis and R.A.’s best interest. Kim challenges the constitutionality of the Grandparents’ Visitation Rights Act, specifically sections 93-16-3(1) and 93-16-5. However, Kim did not file a cross-appeal on the issue of constitutionality. In order for the appellee to gain reversal of any part of the decision of a trial court about which the appellant brings no complaint, the appellee is required to file a cross-appeal.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court